Former top US spokesman who defended Israel now says it 'without doubt' committed war crimes

[Violet_Crumble]

In short:
Former State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said he did not believe Israel was carrying out a genocide, but it did commit war crimes while he was part of the Biden administration.

He did not say so at the time because his job was to speak on behalf of the US government, he said.

He also said the US "should have been tougher" on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and put him under more pressure to accept a ceasefire proposal.

--------------------------------------------------------

A prominent Biden administration spokesperson who defended Israel from allegations of war crimes now says Israel has "without a doubt" committed war crimes in Gaza.

Matthew Miller, who was the State Department's top spokesperson until early this year, sparred with journalists who raised the allegations or questioned American foreign policy in the Middle East.

He has now appeared on a Sky News UK podcast, conceding he believes Israel was responsible for war crimes while he was working in the administration.

Asked if Israel was committing genocide, Mr Miller said: "I don't think it's a genocide, but I think it is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-03/matthew-miller-israel-war-crimes-us-state-department/105369528

[Beastly Boy]

1. I learned a new phrase today.

"Fairness standards" (https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134143751).

It appears that no source which printed this severely abridged version of the story has any.
For the sake of fairness, and with fading hopes of the news media to regain theirs, here is the rest of what Matthew Miller said immediately following the cited comments:

At the 20:40 mark -

But here let me qualify that: there are to ways to think about the commission of war crimes - one is the state had pursued the policy to deliberately committing the war crimes or is acting reckless in a way that aids and abets war crimes. And that I think is an open question. I think what is hard... is certainly not an open question is that there had been individual incidents that have been war crimes where members of Israeli military committed war crimes. So ultimately, in every major conflict, including conflicts prosecuted by democracies, you see individual member of he military... the militaries... commit war crimes. And the way you judge a democracy is whether they hold those people accountable, but Israel hasn't been... that's my point, we have not yet seen them hold sufficient numbers of the military accountable, and I think it's an open question whether they are going to.

And earlier in the podcast:
Ar the 12:35 mark -

What I never heard from people who were criticizing us is what other policy they would pursue other than just stopping support for Israel which, yes might have hampered Israel's war effort - not over the short term - they had a lot of capability to continue prosecution the war but at least in my judgement - I know in President Biden's judgement - the judgement of other senior officials - would have left Hamas in charge and would have left us with unstable security situation that would have endangered the lives of Israelis and Palestinians for months, years and decades to come.

&list=PLG8IrydigQfdD9CriJBZbS8Z5a0HzC6uA&index=3

Pardon the graphic, but this is what Sky News is using.

[lapucelle]

2. So, bottom line, individual members of the military committed war crimes, and this isn't and never was a *genocide*.

That pretty much sounds like every war.

[Beastly Boy]

3. Just about. But...Israel!

[AloeVera]

4. Open question.... ok....

Mr Miller said it was an "open question" whether the Israeli government had pursued a policy to commit war crimes or recklessly abetted them. But it was "almost certainly not an open question" that Israeli soldiers had carried them out, he said.

Too bad he and his Administration opposed holding Israel and Netanyahu accountable. Thus ensuring it remains an "open question". At least legally, if not in the court of public opinion.

Sort of like it might still be an "open question" were it not for the Nuremberg trials.